I don't know for a fact that "most pros" still believe "this will be another very close election," as political handicapper Charlie Cook asserted yesterday [1] in "The Cook Report." But that seems like a reasonable enough overview of professional opinion as it stands.

As it stands. Today. This morning, that is. For I also think that that group opinion is likely experiencing a yet-unspoken metamorphosis -- that it's just biding its time.

Professional pollsters, when asked to opine or predict, will generally demur. They'll go instead, understandably, with whatever the latest statistical evidence says to go with. And in this case, most head-to-head match-ups between Barack Obama and John McCain show only a few points difference; advantage Obama.

These match-ups, however, are snapshots, as we all know. And snapshots, by themselves, do not indicate trends. Yet trends have been the underlying definition of this election to-date, and they are trends that will, in the end, I think, define Obama's victory as well.

Mr. Cook gave some indication of this in his column's opening. The betting pools, he wrote, are all aquiver in expectation of an Obama victory: "If you believe the Intrade betting odds, Barack Obama has a 65 percent chance of beating John McCain in November. Similarly, in the Iowa Electronic Markets, Obama has a 64 percent chance of winning."

Yes, Mr. Cook, I do believe the Intrade betting odds (which, trend-wise, outpace the polls in Obama's statistical advantage), and I would not care to buck them with hard cash. Would you? Would your colleagues? I doubt it.

From what I know -- admittedly, perhaps too little -- about this field of economics, betting pools, as risk-taking and comparatively microcosmic aggregations of future macrobehavior, are reasonably reliable indicators. They are, that is, somewhat solid expressions of otherwise amorphous expectations.

In short, betting pools quite literally put their money where their mouth is. And in their odds -- in this instance, increasingly favorable ones for Obama -- one can glimpse (or, more precisely, extrapolate) the unmistakable contours of an Obama landslide.

That's not to say they're absolutely correct, of course, for the smart money may be absolutely deluded. But, again, I doubt it.

Yet there's something else in Cook's column that's just as solid, it seems to me, but it's given as evidence of a real disconnect. And what is this something else? Well, it's pretty much his entire column, read from a different angle.

Cook's general observation, based on widely scattered evidence of the electorate's present attitude, is that "the Democrats" -- read Obama -- "should be beating the daylights out of the GOP in this election" (but Obama isn't and probably won't). He cites assorted findings from various polls: for example 71 percent of the electorate believes this country is on the wrong track and two-thirds of the nation, to put it loosely, detests our Republican president.

And there's more -- lots more.

Who better "understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives"? Obama, by 25 points. Who "cares about the needs of people like you"? Obama, by 22 points. Who "is independent in his thoughts and actions"? Obama, by 16 points. And who "has a clear plan for solving the country's problems"? It's Obama by 10.  

On "shared values" -- whatever that means -- Obama registered an eight-point advantage. And get this: When asked who "is honest and trustworthy," voters chose Obama over a certified war hero by four points. ("The only issue on which McCain had a meaningful advantage -- and at 19 points, it was a big one -- was terrorism," noted Cook, with noting that this election isn't about terrorism.)

Handling health care? Advantage Obama by 25. Energy and gas prices? Advantage Obama, 19. The economy? Yep, by 16.

Yet, Cook pointed out, "Obama's advantage in the overall general election trial heat? Just 6 points."

All of those preceding findings, of course, are the outcrop of a generic national attitude that for roughly four years has been trending increasingly hostile toward another Republican chief executive. By now, that attitude is well defined and exceptionally entrenched. The now-steady numbers reflect that.

Barack Obama, however, is not well defined -- not in a generic, overall sense. On certain issues, yes, he is. And on some issues, such as health care, the deceased James Michael Curley would probably outpoll John McCain.

Hence Obama's greatest challenge at the moment is to present himself -- as broadly as possible -- as the better choice to the greatest common denominator. And his greatest danger lies in being externally defined as an ideological this or that by the opposition.

And that's all Barack Obama is doing -- presenting the first, battling the second. If he stays the course -- and I think he's a clever enough Democrat to do just that -- then eventually we'll see a merging of trends, one that matches the betting pools.